NDEs tend to be varied - there are accounts of people having seen hell and heaven. An OBE is one category of NDE that I find very interesting. Imagine what it'd be like to see yourself doing stuff, well, actually just lying on an operation table. That would really rearrange one's beliefs in intersting ways.

As for a counterargument - the phenomenon isn't universally reported and hence, to that extent, dubious. The evidence itself is rather suspect - biased research is almost always a feature. Then of course is the issue of bad science - doctors, neuroscientists, quote unquote, aren't really physicists you know - their grasp of what science actually is wanting in many critical respects.

Why would most people's not having an experience count as evidence against some people's having it? Most people haven't experienced zero gravity. But some people have. That's a general point about evidence and experiences, not specifically about NDE.

One point about a lot of people near to death is that they actually die and we have no idea what they experienced (if anything). It could be that everybody has NDE when they are on the point of death and that of those people very few make it back to life to tell the tale. People who report not having NDE were simply not close enough to death for the experience to kick in. That's a particular point about NDE and can never be substantiated or falsified. So it doesn't count as empirical science. Nor does its negation. To assert it or deny it is equally speculation.

First off, nobody can experience zero gravity. Secondly all we can do is count all the people who were clinically dead for a time being and if less than 20% of them have NDEs why can't that suggest imagination being involved to pacify the ego during a crisis whether or not they mentally realize it? Also of course memories can form as soon as a person starts to wake and they can easily mistaken the when of when the memories were actually created.

What are the best arguments against near death experiences as evidence of conscious existence separate of the physical body based on anecdotal testimonials, and what are the best counter arguments? — TiredThinker

A "near-death experience" is not the death of experience – irreversible brain death.

The counterweight to NDE is all of the times people have lost consciousness, had convulsions, were in critical conditionc(MI/CVA), etc. and didn't have an NDE.

Secondly all we can do is count all the people who were clinically dead for a time being and if less than 20% of them have NDEs why can't that suggest imagination being involved to pacify the ego during a crisis whether or not they mentally realize it? — TiredThinker

Exactly. It might suggest exactly what you say. And equally it might not. There is no way of empirically distinguishing those two cases. So it's speculation rather than a project of empirical science.

The counterweight to NDE is all of the times people have lost consciousness, had convulsions, were in critical conditionc(MI/CVA), etc. and didn't have an NDE — Agent Smith

I don't think that follows. The absence of a phenomenon in one context does is not in itself evidence of absence in another. The absence of turtles on the Isle of Arran does not count as evidence that are no turtles in the Seychelles. My failing to see a rainbow does not count as evidence that you haven't seen one.

There aren't' any good arguments against NDEs. I've read almost all of the so-called counter-arguments. There are arguments against specific NDEs, because there are people making some of these stories up and cashing in on books. All of the arguments against, involving hallucinations, lack of oxygen to the brain, dreams, the brain shutting down, drugs, etc., don't have much of a leg to stand on, especially if you read the medical data on these specific counter-arguments and compare them with NDEs.

Second, because testimonial evidence is varied, or even contradictory, that's not necessarily a good reason to dismiss the testimonial evidence. For example, if you have 20 people who witness a car accident, and you have, say, 10% of the witnesses contradicting the other 90%, that doesn't mean you can't use the evidence, or that the overall evidence isn't good. This happens all the time with testimonial evidence. I can come to a reasonable conclusion (inductively) based on the 90%. You have to know how to sort through the testimonial evidence and make correct inferences. This is what is done in science, the FBI and in our courts all the time, sometimes we get it wrong, depending on the strength of the testimony or data, but generally we get it right. All inductive conclusions have a probability of being incorrect. However, if the evidence is strong, you can make a claim to knowledge, the inductive conclusion doesn't have to necessarily follow, it just has to be highly probable.

Almost all of our beliefs are arrived at through testimony, viz., books, lectures, videos, etc. You can't doubt most of it without collapsing one of our main sources of knowledge. The point here is that you have to know how to evaluate testimonial evidence. Testimonial evidence is one of the weakest ways to gain knowledge, however, under the right conditions it can be very very strong. This is why I explain in my thread what makes this testimonial evidence so strong. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it's irrational to reject it if you fully understand all the testimonials, the medical data (at least some of it), and much of the research data associated with the experiences. Most people who respond to these arguments (especially in these forums) don't understand the data, and don't know how to evaluate the testimonials.

Much of what we believe is influenced, to a large degree, by culture, family, friends, religion, etc., which is why there are different interpretations of what people see in these NDEs. For example, if you're a Christian, you'll have a tendency to interpret certain beings as Jesus, while in other cultures they may interpret the being as some other religious figure. This is why it's important to look at these testimonials across a wide swath of cultures. That said, there are certain aspects of the NDE that occur in all cultures and in all or almost all accounts of these NDEs. One of the main things that occurs in these NDEs, is the OBE, along with several other experiences that make them very similar. There is statistical data that supports this, so it's not just something pulled out of the air. By the way, this similarity of experience demonstrates why most who study this material don't believe people are having hallucinations, or some other medical problem.

I want to add that I don't think these NDEs support a particular religious view of the afterlife. In fact, if anything, it contradicts many or some of the religious dogma. My own view based on considerable evidence, is that we're having a human experience, but that we're connected to some consciousness source, be it God (but this God, if he/she exists, is probably very different from, for e.g., the Christian God), or some other kind of intellectual power. This isn't a death experience, it's a near-death experience, and these NDEs point to something much more to our lives than we are aware in our very limited understanding.

Finally, there are many unanswered questions, but that should spur us on to pursue the the answers, not to simply throw out the evidence because it doesn't fit a narrative.

There's much more written in my thread - https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body

Interesting argument.

If 100 people are clinically dead for a time and only 10% have the experience how doesn't that cast doubt onto the legitimacy of it representing consciousness outside of the body? Why can't it just as easily be imagined?

"some consciousness source"? What does this mean? Are you suggesting we don't have consciousness of our own? A loan of some kind?

I suspect @Sam26 denies the occurrences and efficacy of the placebo effect.

What are the best arguments against near death experiences as evidence of conscious existence separate of the physical body based on anecdotal testimonials, and what are the best counter arguments? — TiredThinker

The arguments against dualism. We know that brain and mind are intimately linked, in that doing things to the mind alters the body (I can move my hand), and doing things to the body alters one's mind (getting drunk). We know that there is a crucial problem with dualism in that it cannot explain the causal connection between mind and body.

If 100 people are clinically dead for a time and only 10% have the experience how doesn't that cast doubt onto the legitimacy of it representing consciousness outside of the body? Why can't it just as easily be imagined? — TiredThinker

The question is, how does it cast doubt on the legitimacy of those who had the experience (by the way, Cuthbert also commented on this reasoning)? You're assuming that in a certain context, if only 10 out of a 100 have a certain experience, then the experience isn't valid. How does that logically follow? You have to look at the experience itself to see if there are reasons to suppose the NDE experience is veridical. There have been too many instances of testimonial corroboration, viz., where the description of events while claiming to be outside their body is verified with those doctors and nurses who were there. I don't see how you can dismiss that, other than they're describing real events.

"some consciousness source"? What does this mean? Are you suggesting we don't have consciousness of our own? A loan of some kind? — TiredThinker

There seems to be a source of all consciousness, and that we are connected to that source. It doesn't mean that your consciousness is not your own. There are clearly unanswered questions, but just because you can't answer all the questions, it doesn't follow that consciousness is necessitated by the brain. The testimonial evidence favors, by a long shot, that consciousness survives death. You have to look at the evidence as a whole, like putting a puzzle together with some missing pieces. You can still see with the pieces missing a clear picture forming.

What does the placebo effect got to do with seeing and hearing real events that have the corroboration of those who were there. Maybe the experience of you sitting at your computer typing is the result of the placebo effect, but I seriously doubt it.

Dualism might not be the best argument. One can argue in favor of consciousness being separate from the body/brain, as mine does, without using dualistic arguments. Although, it sure seems to favor some form of dualism. It may be that everything falls under the rubric of consciousness, i.e., that consciousness is the source of all reality. This is a possible answer, one that I lean towards.

Come back from irreverdible brain death with corroborable memories of an "afterlife". That would be proof. Anecdotes – eyewitness testimonies – are notoriously unreliable (as inmates in asylums attest to daily). "NDE" isn't death, it's a cognitive illusion (e.g. an altered / suboptimal brain-state) like e.g. the placebo effect, false memories.

Yes, this exactly. If mystical/religious/dualist/etc interpretation of these experiences were correct, this is something we would expect to see. The fact that we do not see it happen is itself probably the single strongest argument/evidence that these experiences are not veridical.

Come back from irreverdible brain death with corroborable memories of an "afterlife". That would be proof. Anecdotes – eyewitness testimonies – are notoriously unreliable (as inmates in asylums attest to daily). "NDE" isn't death, it's a cognitive illusion (e.g. an altered / suboptimal brain-state) like e.g. the placebo effect. — 180 Proof

Well, by definition you can't come back from irreversible brain death. So, you're asking the impossible. Mostly we use anecdote to refer to stories that tend to be unreliable or just hearsay. These stories are not anecdotes in that sense. I hear people use this as an argument, but it shows their bias because these stories, the one's that have been corroborated, are by definition not anecdotal. They're firsthand accounts, which have been verified by other witnesses of the events. In other words, the NDErs are describing events around their bodies from a third person perspective, like any other observer. In many cases there's no brain activity, no heart beat, no breathing, eyes are dilated and fixed, etc; and yet, they're able to give an accurate account (including conversations and other descriptions of the people who are there) of what's happening. This is what good testimonial amounts to. Also, if you have hundreds of thousands of accounts (more like 10's of millions) like this, it's not weak testimonial evidence, it's very strong testimonial evidence.

I agree, testimonial evidence is notoriously weak, but it can be very strong, and this can be demonstrated using the criteria for a good inductive argument, using simple logic.

Your pronouncement that "NDEs...[are] a cognitive illusion" is just an opinion that's not supported by the data, and it's not an argument. You're not giving a cogent or sound argument, period, you're speculating; and speculating is fine, I enjoy doing it, but it's not what I would expect from someone putting forth a reasoned argument against my position. The idea that it's some placebo effect is just silly.

Yes, this exactly. If mystical/religious/dualist/etc interpretation of these experiences were correct, this is something we would expect to see. The fact that we do not see it happen is itself probably the single strongest argument/evidence that these experiences are not veridical. — busycuttingcrap

You disregard the testimonial evidence given in my argument (in my thread), and ask for evidence, "coming back from irreversible brain death" as proof, as per 180 Proof. You expect me or anyone who has studied the data to take this seriously. I'm always complaining to Christians about their arguments, but these statements are worse.

Like testimonial evidence of "bleeding statues"? Gullible is as gullible does. :lol:

Still no argument, only statements that reflect your feelings and attitudes. Poor substitution for logic. You're blinded by your metaphysical bias and dogmatism, but I digress.

Other people's NDE's are useless.

There is nothing to learn from them that could provide one with an advantage in life.

Wow, you must have studied NDEs for what, 5 minutes. This is just false, and blatantly so. If it's true that NDEs are veridical (as per my thread- https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body), then they give hope to millions of people who have lost loved ones. NDEs also give hope to those who fear death, who are dying, and who are suffering. The one thing that comes across in most NDEs is the unconditional love that supports us, and how connected we are to one another and the universe at large. This isn't the unconditional love that Christians believe in, where Gods says he loves you, but if you don't believe in me you're going to hell. It's much richer than any religious dogma, and points to where our home truly is. Moreover, it sheds light on consciousness, and the different levels of consciousness. It also sheds light on why so many people believe there is much more to our lives than this short human experience. These are just some of the benefits of learning or studying about NDEs, there is much much more.

You disregard the testimonial evidence given in my argument (in my thread), and ask for evidence, "coming back from irreversible brain death" as proof, as per 180 Proof. You expect me or anyone who has studied the data to take this seriously. I'm always complaining to Christians about their arguments, but these statements are worse. — Sam26

I was responding to the OP, I didn't read your post. But testimonial evidence on this topic is old hat, and is completely inconclusive since the body of testimony RE NDEs is nevertheless consistent with the hallucination hypothesis- cognitive mechanisms like false memory being well-established at this point.

And I'm not sure why you're hyper-focused on the word "irreversible" here since that was beside the point. One thing we would expect to see, if NDEs were veridical and evidence of consciousness absent a physical body and/or life after the physical death of the body, is the occasional ability to perceive some piece of information or evidence, during the event, that can be verified as veridical and would not be available otherwise. And this doesn't happen (there have been studies that did precisely this, and returned a negative result, including studies sympathetic to NDEs such as the AWARE study). But then, if you truly are familiar with the data, and not just the data you think confirms your pre-existing position, you already knew that. Right?

And since its something we would strongly expect to see, on the hypothesis that NDEs are veridical experiences detaching consciousness/the soul from the physical brain/body, the fact that we don't see it is itself strong evidence against this hypothesis.

Still no argument, only statements that reflect your feelings and attitudes. Poor substitution for logic. You're blinded by your metaphysical bias and dogmatism, but I digress. — Sam26

Um... As if you aren't a determined partisan on this topic, given that you've been on this NDE crusade going back to old PF (if not longer). C'mon, man. I just don't think you can credibly play the "bias and dogmatism" card here anymore.

If it's true that NDEs are veridical (as per my thread- https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body), then they give hope to millions of people who have lost loved ones. NDEs also give hope to those who fear death, who are dying, and who are suffering. — Sam26

Unless one had a NDE oneself (and a life-affirming one at that), one would still have to take other people's word for gold in order to get that hope to meet with loved ones in the afterlife. One might as well believe in Jesus.

I believe NDE's exist, but they don't inspire any hope in me.

Not true. Just because you do not accept my argument — you certainly haven't refuted it – doesn't indicate I haven't made an argument. Another showing that your reasoning, Sam, is quite poor.

What you fail to consider or recognize is that every life from its birth to its death is a "near-death experience" because we are mortal beings. There cannot be even a glimpse of – that there is – "life after death" by the not-yet-dead any more than "north of the North Pole" can be reached by a hiker. That people are revived to tell their "NDE stories" proves they were not ever fundamentally – metaphysically – dead to begin with. "Clinical death" only indicates the limit of medical interventions for reviving the patient; this, however, is not organic, irreversible death.

While the patient is "down" and there is a complete cessation of brain activity, this is proof that the patient's brain is not forming any new memory traces of the so-called "NDE" the patient believes she had while her brain activity was zero. So whence the "NDE"? It likely happens during the patient's revival after brain activity has resumed.

Notably, the vast majority of coma patients who revive from near or complete vegetative states do not report "NDEs"; that a very tiny fraction of "the clinically dead" have reported "NDEs" is no more statistically significant than reports of "alien abductions".

Moreover, studies have reproduced the distinctive effects/components of NDEs in other situations (i.e. situations where the subject is not near death), for instance by administering certain kinds of hallucinogens such as ketamine (as in Jansen 2001).

Cite those studies. Thanks.

I did cite the one that I remembered (the ketamine one) without having to poke around on Google- Jansen 2001. I know I've read that researchers have found certain of the distinctive elements of NDEs (tunnel of light, etc) in other situations as well, but I don't remember the details and I'd have to look around for the citations.

(To be clear, I'm saying that the fact that the distinctive elements of NDEs can be generated in non-near death situations further undermines the idea that NDEs represent veridical experiences/evidence for consciousness in the absence of brain function or for an immortal soul- don't mistake me for arguing for any of this squishy spiritualist nonsense)

:up:

issue of bad science - doctors, neuroscientists, quote unquote, aren't really physicists you know - their grasp of what science actually is wanting in many critical respects.
4d — Agent Smith

I think this is absurd. Science does not equal physics. Physics is one element of science. Science is rather a formal behaviour of investigation.

To tell doctors and neuroscientists to essentially "stay in their lane" to let the real scientists (the physicists for some reason) handle it presupposes that lack of overlap between the disciplines.

Also many doctors/neuroscientists also have a PhD in physics. Perhaps to further a specific area of research which requires both.

I think physicists grasp of science may be wanting in areas like biology and chemistry.

I really haven't had the time to develop a nuanced view of the sciences and it shows. However, as far as I can tell there's a fundamental difference between the physics-chemistry duo and the biological sciences. When does a biologist sit down and take a break, satisfied that he's reduced biology to chemistry & physics.

When does a biologist sit down and take a break, satisfied that he's reduced biology to chemistry & physics. — Agent Smith

Never. :sweat: